- (1.) RAKESH Tiwari, J. Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) BY means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the correctness and validity of the award dated 29-3-2001 in adjudication case No. 70 of 1999. BY the aforesaid award the Tribunal has decided the reference against the petitioner holding that he had not completed 240 days of continuous service in the last preceding 12 months, as is not entitled to any relief. The petitioner was appointed as daily wager Class IV employee by the Executive Engineer Gramin Abhiyantran Sewa Prakhand Vikash Bhawan, Pratapgarh w. e. f. 1-1-1990. It is alleged that he has continuously worked till 2-12-1996 thereafter his services were terminated orally w. e. f. 3-12-1996. It is also alleged that prior termination of service of the petitioner he also claimed regularization and had set the representation to respondent No. 3 in this regard. Aggrieved by his termination the petitioner filed an application raising an Industrial Dispute before regional conciliation officer, where it was registered as C. B. Case No. 13/1979. On conciliation proceedings having failed the Regional Officer, Allahabad referred the following matter of dispute to Industrial Tribunal, Allahabad. The reference was registered before the Tribunal as adjudication case No. 70 of 1999.
(3.) ON receipt of summons the parties filed their respective written statements and rejoinder statements. The petitioner moved an application for summoning attendance and payment register for the period from 1-1-1990 to 2-12-1996 and pay roll for the period of 1-1-1997 to 31-12-1997 for proving that he had continuously worked till the period. The respondent filed objection stating that document are preserved only for one year. The petitioner thereafter filed 11 documents vide list-dated 13-8-1999 in support of his case in evidence and also examined the witnesses. The tribunal by the impugned award held that the petitioner had not worked for more than 240 days in preceding 12 months from the date of termination. Thus, there is no question of violation of Section 6-N of the U. P. Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. It further held that the petitioner has failed to prove that any person junior to the petitioner was retained and the service of the workman were terminated. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal held that the workman was not entitled to relief and decided the reference against the petitioner. The Labour Court has also given finding of fact that the petitioner had not discharged his burden of proof that he was appointed against any post and that his appointment was purely on daily wage. The Tribunal has believed the case of the employer that respondent No. 3 was only engaged from time to time for specified period in the exigencies of work. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that petitioner is retrenched employee and entitled to get preference under Section 6-Q of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. This contention has no force as Labour Court has held that he has not worked for 240 day and is not a retrenched employee.;